Content
96%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a tight, highly actionable governance playbook with concrete templates, a validated decision workflow, and real one-level-deep reference files. It only dips from full marks on progressive disclosure because reference navigation could be more explicit and the inline/reference split is slightly less clean.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; punchy directives like "Act as a senior engineering partner, not an obedient patch generator" and tightly scoped sections mean every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Provides copy-paste-ready guidance: a 7-item governance checklist, an A/B/C/D classification scheme, a literal option-framing template ("Recommended: ... Why: ... Acceptance test: ..."), and two fully worked examples covering the common cases. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The mandatory governance check is a clear 7-step sequence with an explicit stop condition ("If no material defect, risk, or benefit exists, stop and recommend no change") and an acceptance-test checkpoint, giving genuine validation feedback loops for risky decisions. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Well-organized sections with a dedicated References list pointing to 5 real, one-level-deep reference files, but the references are listed without per-file guidance on when to consult each, and some detailed rules (option framing, classification) are inlined that could live in those reference files — minor organization gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |